“I Pledge Allegiance to… The President?”

September 23rd, 2012

Several of Hollywood’s biggest celebrities have come out in recent days with a new version of the Pledge of Allegiance. Specifically, they’re holding their right hands over their hearts and pledging allegiance to President Obama.

Actress Jessica Alba is leading the way. She told the Washington Examiner:

“Growing up, my classmates and I started every day with a ritual. We’d stand up, put our right hand over our hearts, and say the Pledge of Allegiance,” explains Alba. “To me, that gesture was a promise. A promise to be involved and engaged in this country’s future. A promise to work for liberty and justice — and for affordable education, health care, and equality — for all.”

For her part, Alba is simply acting as one of the faces of the Obama campaign’s new “For All” promotion. Obama supporters are taking pictures of themselves pledging allegiance to Obama with important issues written on their right hands — like “equal pay”, “cleaner energy”, and “women’s rights”.

But should we really be pledging allegiance to any one person?

Doesn’t the entire thing conjure up an image of a leader who is so blinded by power that he starts operating in his own best interests — instead of ours? Regardless of your political beliefs, America is supposed to be greater than any one person. It’s supposed to be a nation of “We The People”.

How a Poor Economy Toppled Ancient Rome

We’ve all heard of the fall of the Roman Empire, but do you actually know what led up to it?

Ancient Rome ultimately fell victim to economic woes that, unfortunately, aren’t all that different from what we’re dealing with today.

The Roman economic woes began with Emperor Commodus, who taxed the upper class (known as “Senators” in those days. Ironic, huh?) and gave the money to the lower classes. As a result, the vocal lower classes adored Commodus — and they held the same love for Nero, who kept up the extreme taxation and redistribution long after Commodus was gone.

Eventually, though, Rome’s economy took a tumble. As a result, several Emperors — spanning hundreds of years — debased the currency. That’s a fancy way of saying they used fewer precious metals to make their coins so that they could make more of them. Unfortunately, that made the value of the coins plummet, and inflation went sky-high.

In order to make up the difference, the Emperors increased taxes. But it wasn’t just for financial purposes. Today, economic experts who have studied Rome’s finances say the Senators were deliberately over-taxed in order to decrease their political power.

However, once the Senators ran out of money, it was up to the lower classes to pay to maintain the empire — especially the military troops that were stationed at Rome’s borders.

Unfortunately, though, the lower classes couldn’t foot the bills by themselves. Eventually, the military crumbled, and the Turks were able to take over Eastern Rome. A few decades later, vandals officially toppled Western Rome.

Today, in America, we’ve just uncovered a secret video of the President proclaiming his support for redistribution. There’s also talk of increasing taxes only on the upper class. And, The Fed is, in essence, printing more money (something they call “Quantitative Easing”).

It took the Romans centuries to see the results of their economic mistakes… Are we headed down a similar path?

Just How Powerful is Government Supposed to Be?

September 23rd, 2012

The Constitution focused heavily on a government with limited powers. After all, our forefathers had just risked life and limb to hop in boats and travel across the Atlantic — then fought a war — just to get away from the oppressive government back in England.

The last thing they wanted was a repeat here!

In order to keep the federal government from spiraling out of control, the forefathers created three branches of government — each with its own job to do. That way, the government had a built-in way to keep itself in check.

So, if the Executive Branch overstepped its boundaries, the Legislative Branch could stop it. Or, if the Legislative Branch started hogging too much power, the Executive Branch could step in.

In order to make things even more clear, the forefathers created a list of Enumerated Powers that spelled out exactly what Congress was allowed to do. You can find the entire list in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, but the list includes things like collecting taxes, regulating foreign commerce, coining money, establishing post offices, creating and maintaining a military, and borrowing money on U.S. credit.

To the forefathers, anything that went beyond the list was simply not the role of the federal government. Remember, they believed that our rights were given to us by God — not the government. In fact, most of the Bill of Rights is aimed at keeping the government out of the way.

So how do you think today’s government big-wigs are living up to the Constitution? Are they abiding by the Enumerated Powers? Are they making the government bigger than it was ever intended to be?

Why is the Second Amendment So Important?

September 23rd, 2012

If you Google the term “repeal Second Amendment”, more than two million results pop up. You’ll find articles blaming the Second Amendment for the July mass-shooting in a Colorado movie theater, for the Arizona shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, and even for arming the Mexican drug cartels.

There’s no doubt that guns can do horrible things, but does that mean we should change the Bill of Rights?

The 27 words that make up the Second Amendment are clear:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Back in 1791, there was no National Guard. Instead, Americans had militias that could be called upon when things got rough. In fact, Colonists had been relying on these militias ever since they first arrived at Jamestown in 1607. Without them, America may not have been able to break free of England in the first place.

Back in those days, you weren’t just ALLOWED to have a gun. You were EXPECTED to have gun.

But Thomas Jefferson took it one step further.

Remember, the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the government works for the people — not vice versa. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson talked about what would happen if the government failed to protect its citizens. What if the government actually became the enemy of the people?

In that case, Jefferson said, the people were allowed to overthrow the government.

But doing so wouldn’t be possible without weapons. Therefore, Jefferson reasoned, the federal government could never forbid its citizens from bearing arms. If it did, the people had no way to prevent the government from running right over the top of them.

Don’t we face the same threat today?

If we repeal the Second Amendment, does it give the government an opportunity to stop working FOR us and start working AGAINST us?

What is Redistribution?

September 23rd, 2012

In a much talked-about video from 1998 that has just surfaced, President Obama says “I actually believe in redistribution.”

But what does that mean?

Redistribution is a fancy word for creating level incomes in a particular society. Specifically, you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Redistribution is the main focus of Socialism, because Socialists believe that everyone should be equal — regardless of how much they work or how much money they make on their own.

To a point, America already redistributes some of its wealth. After all, money for welfare and other government assistance programs comes from tax dollars. So, some of the rich’s money is already given to the poor.

However, what would happen if America were to place more emphasis on redistribution?

History gives us two big examples of where redistribution has been tried — and failed:

– Henry VIII seized money from the Catholic churches in England and gave it to his supporters. However, it still wasn’t enough to keep the country afloat. Henry VIII wound up having to lower the value of the country’s coins — which led to massive inflation.

– During the French Revolution, police took money from the wealthy citizens. What they left behind, looters stole for themselves. In the end, Louis XIV was beheaded, and France was left with a dictator in charge named Napoleon.

It made a nice catch phrase for Robin Hood, but is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor what our forefathers intended for America?

While we can’t speak for all of them, we know that Thomas Jefferson was against it. In a letter to Joseph Milligan in 1816, Jefferson wrote:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

Although it’s probably not the way he would have preferred the information come out, a video of a Romney fundraiser has been the talk of much discussion over the past few days. On it, Romney talks about the people whom he can never convince to vote for him over President Obama. According to Romney:

“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”

As of 2011, 46% of Americans paid no income taxes. So, there are plenty of people who want to be PAID by the system — but aren’t willing to PAY INTO the system. Romney mentions these people by saying:

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives…”

Even though the video was leaked without his knowledge, Romney has stood by his comments.

So, is he right?

Has America turned into a “me-first” society? Are Americans simply looking for a handout? Has it really been that long since John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,”?

Regardless of what you think about Mitt Romney’s political beliefs, is he right? Is a huge portion of Americans dependent on the government? What would our forefathers think about that? More importantly, what do YOU think about that?

Are We Headed for a Repeat of the French Revolution?

When you look at the in-fighting, the protesting, and the economic climate of America today, you can’t help but be reminded of what was going on in France just prior to the French Revolution.

Let’s rewind to the late 1700’s…

France’s national debt was out of control. Unemployment was very high. People in lower classes hated the upper-class citizens — not just the royal ones, but even professional people, because they felt like the professional citizens were taking advantage of them. And, despite all of the taxes people were paying, France’s economy was wreck.

Sound familiar?

Eventually, people were so angry that they stormed the Bastille prison. Just like that, the French Revolution had officially begun.

While Bastille Day is celebrated today, the overturn of the prison led to some long-term negative effects. Once the French Revolution began, the country was full of civil disobedience. In order to combat it, French leaders decided to create a stricter government. Soon, they decided that man’s rights were not God-given. Instead, any rights people had came directly from the government.

As a result, the government started erasing religious freedom. Churches were seized, and priests were required to take a special oath to the government. The ones who didn’t were jailed.

A few years later, Napoleon seized on the chaos and took over. Unfortunately, he was a dictator who caused even more serious problems for the French people.

What do you think? Is it possible for America to go through a similar revolution?

What Does “We the People” Mean Anyways?

September 17th, 2012

They’re the first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution, but have you given any serious thought to what “We the People” really means?

Back when it was first written in September 1787, “We the People” referred to everyone who was living in the brand new America as a means to escape from an unfair government back in England. By starting off the Preamble to the Constitution by talking about the people — instead of talking about the government — it was a clear sign that the government’s power came FROM the people it served.

But has the meaning of “We the People” changed since our forefathers wrote it down all those years ago?

Think about today’s political climate and how it affects “We the People”…

Does it refer to all Americans, regardless of race, marital status, religious views, political views, etc?

Does it refer to anyone who calls this country home — either legally or illegally?

Does it only refer to the “people” in power — like the members of a certain political party?

Does it only refer to people who have the means to get their message heard — like in TV commercials, in giant Facebook marketing campaigns, or in loud protests?

Does it only refer to the people who vote?

Does it only refer to the majority?

Does it only refer to the people who work on Capitol Hill?

One important thing to remember — when our forefathers came up with the term “We the People”, they weren’t just giving the American people rights. The term was also used to describe the “people” responsible for upholding the foundations of the Constitution.

So, what do you think? Are the “people” doing a good job of that today?

Happy Constitution Day!

September 17th, 2012

On September 17, 1787, 42 delegates met and changed the history of the world. They had only one thing on their to-do lists that day — sign the U.S. Constitution.

Finally putting signatures onto paper was a remarkable achievement for these men. After all, they had been hard at work for months, trying to come up with a document that would set a baby-faced America on the right path.

First, they thought they could simply rewrite the Articles of Confederation. But, after much nit-picking, it was decided that America would be better off with a fresh document. And so the debate began in Philadelphia’s State House, to determine what kinds of powers the federal government would have — and what kinds of options the people would have to reign it in if it got out of control.

Dozens of delegates sat around the table for four months, throwing out ideas and trying to balance ideas and fears from all over the 13 colonies. Even though there was no 24-hour news cycle, no Twitter, and no smartphones, Americans shared in the debate — from their taverns, their street corners, and their polling places.

With so much on the line, the delegates had to get it right. They had to come up with a document that summed up what they wanted and how they were going to get it. If they didn’t word it perfectly, all of the fighting America did to earn its independence would be in vain.

So, when you’re going about your daily business on September 17th, think about what these men must have gone through. The pressure they faced was immeasurable. They — literally — had the weight of an entire country on their shoulders.

Let's Get Social!

The "Audit the FED” Bill, HR 459, which calls for a full audit of the Federal Reserve System-- including its lending facilities and critical monetary policy operations passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan vote of 327-98.(PRWeb August 22, 2012)Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/ron-paul/audit-the-fed/prweb9820378.htm